California v. Schaffer
Annotate this CaseDefendant-appellant Andras Peter Schaffer was convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison in 2015 for failing to register as a sex offender. He was released on parole in 2016 on the condition he wear a GPS monitoring device and charge it, at least twice daily. He appealed a July 2019 superior court order, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated his parole by failing to keep his GPS monitoring device charged and ordering him to serve 180 days in county jail. Relying on the plurality opinion in United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019), defendant claimed he had a Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine whether he violated his parole based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court violated that right by denying his request to allow a jury to determine whether he violated his parole. The Court of Appeal determined defendant did not have a right to have a jury determine whether he violated his parole, and the reasoning of the Haymond plurality did not apply to defendant’s case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.